INTRODUCTION

Ethical concerns and/or discussions in the architectural profession are hard to date back precisely. Yet still, the typical attitude positions those concerns on the fourth quarter of the 20^th century and, more generally, the beginning of the 21^st century. Although some reputable sources question the history of architectural ethics and the terminal ethical discussions in the 1990s (see Smiths, 1992; Pelletier & Pérez-Gómez, 1994; Fisher, 2008), it is seen that the current literature has been structured in the early periods of the 2000s. It is also improbable to review those approaches under similar titles. The scope of the ethical concerns on architecture tends to shape in parallel with leading sensitivities to global problems. Therefore, in some cases, it plays the role of ecological responsibilities, while in others, it is the social duties of architecture. Even though there are also contrary approaches for each title, a particular case differs from others with its still-continuing debates by producing a ‘provocative’ actor in this field. This paper aims to present the ongoing discussions against Schumacher in terms of the ethical concerns of architecture by questioning the social duties of the profession.

To achieve this aim, the study starts with a brief definition of ethics but mostly the discussions of architectural ethics and to position Schumacher’s statements in this theoretical frame. Following to discuss Schumacher’s perspective on related issues, main reactions and criticism are considered to underlying motives to understand expected social duties of architecture against Patrik Schumacher.

1 . METHODOLOGY

The methodological structure of the paper is constructed in two sub-section; (i) To better understand the ethical perspective of Schumacher, his theories on this specific issue are taken as the theoretical background of the discussions, (ii) To analyse and discuss the reactions against Schumacher’s related narratives, the contents of digital architectural platforms are considered as the initial data sources. Alexa Algorithms are used to specify and limit related digital platforms according to visiting frequency. Alexa is the only international platform that scans in various scales and shares the results with third parties. It is important to emphasise that the ranking results may have been differentiated if any other algorithm had calculated them. Yet, attributed to the open-access service of Alexa, it is the only suitable platform for this research. To determine the study sample, 73 English medium digital platforms, which include timely theoretical discussions, are uploaded to Alexa. The top 5 results are taken into consideration for the study, and the Alexa ranks are shown in column 2 (Table 1). To specify the related discussions within the scope of the paper, the search was done by the following keywords: “Patrik Schumacher, ethics, society, critiques, criticism”, and results were eliminated if the content is not related to Schumacher’s statements. The numbers of articles that formed a base for the findings of this study are itemised in column 3.

Regarding the contents of the sample, Schumacher origin discussions on the societal task of architecture -and ethical concerns about it- can be brought together under three main titles; (i) housing crises and free-market economy, (ii) PC movement through Venice Architectural Biennial and Pritzker Prize, (iii) narratives on star architects and iconic designs. The number of articles is presented in columns 4, 5, and 6 below. Considering the format of the paper, this study will only focus on the discussions in columns 4 and 5.

Table 1 Top 5 Most Visited Architectural Digital Media Platforms within the Scope of the Discussion (Alexa, 2020).

2. THE CONCEPT OF ETHICS AND ETHICAL CONCERNS IN ARCHITECTURE

Ethics as a general concept has been disputed around the question “what we ought to do?” and theories behind that question mostly exposing moral principles and their nature. Moral principles vary according to the paradigm addressed in establishing these principles. The variance could be instantiated with some of the well-known ethical architectures. From a utilitarian perspective, the paradigm is seen as the purpose of human desire and actions are to be happy, and s/he prefer the good for her/himself. Therefore, what is done is ‘true’ to the extent that it is ‘good’ for individuals and society. Ethical behaviour is correct due to evaluating how well the results of advocacy and how good it is for the person (Williams, 1972).

On the other hand, we see the concept of the social contract as a moral source in Contractarianism. In this theory, ethical behaviour derives from the agreements between the subjects of a society that the issues intend to implement. As a final example, referring to the well-known actor of ethical debates, morality in the Kantian perspective comes from the pure practical reasoning of a rational agent. Domination towards others’ choices directly restricted due to the rationality attribution to the agent. This constitutes autonomy of willing, which forms the same opportunity for all agents and should be preserved for humanity which could be recognised as a source of Kantian ethics (Chappel, 2012). Bauman discusses the autonomy of willing with a postmodern perspective and differs Modern ethical codes from the postmodern ones. According to Bauman, the Modern-based ethics of purely logical society and out of desire cannot be suitable in a postmodern world. The postmodern way of thinking has allowed redefining the moral and the un-moral and defined freedom of choice as a new ethical code. He also underlines that the orthodox desire for steady fundamentals of social ethic will always express itself with the will of humanist approaches (Bauman, 2020).

Ethical concerns in architecture also varied through the paradigm, mainly through values. Values concerned with architectural ethics divided the discussion into two domains which are autonomism and moralism, and this distinction appears as an ethic-aesthetic debate in architecture. On the one hand, ethics is constituted by values that architecture must have in its nature, such as the well of humanity and ecology. On the other hand, architecture is comprised as a profession that only has an aesthetic capability so that ethical values couldn’t denote its responsibility in its nature. Generally, these differences are established in architecture by referring to the ethic theories and social sciences to constitute ethical positions in architecture by articulating them. As an example of referring and articulating ethics theories in architecture, Wasserman, Barry & Pallermo’s articulation of Kantian perspective on ethics and aesthetics could be expressed. When we look at their book Ethics and the Practice of Architecture, which is an essential resource on the ethics in architecture, they punctuated Kant’s words that “perfect architecture” can only be sought with its response to the human purpose and its wills (Wasserman, Barry & Pallermo, 2000, p.31). They also refer to the aesthetics values that architects must determine while shaping the environment that humans engage in according to their purposes. Both aesthetic and moral issues are the chief virtues concerning human life as a whole. Even some readings of Kantian perspective acknowledged that Kant is differentiated ethics from aesthetics regarding the separation of good and beauty (Timuçin, 2005), some architect-authors’ articulation of him established ethics and beauty in a holistic perspective. The concern behind that articulation of to construct architecture as a creation of what is good and beautiful for humanity and to consider this value as a nature of architecture.  It also suits the authors to follow societal concerns in architecture to construct ethics since they are social artefacts that express social values and can shift these values. Their approach claims a societal virtue that architecture has to hold and could be acknowledged from Vitruvius, Alberti, and Ruskin to link architecture to societal benefits (Wasserman et al., 2000).

In recent years, this social obligation that architects must have expanded their boundaries with environmental responsibility due to global warming and resource scarcity of the world. The scope of the concerns in architecture shifts its attention from human-centric social problems to more holistic concerns, that is, all living things without discrimination among them. Hence, inquiry through ethics in architecture shifts its attention to ethical concerns by constructing moral obligations to nature as equal as concerns of the well-being of the inhabitants in the built environment. In the same stand with this view, studies and theories establish architects as moral agents since the natural habitats were left at the mercy of the built environment (Fox, 2000). It should be added that, even though the ethical concerns and its responsible subject disputed and constituted in architecture as an architect’s obligations, the general view is more complex due to the range of stakeholders involved in the architectural activity (Legaux, 2004). The responsibilities of the virtues that must be involved are attributed generally to the architect. Still, it should be understood that since the architect is a moral agent but not the only agent that constructs the built environment, many theoreticians add moral virtues to architecture rather than architects. After this position on reading ethics in architecture, moral values become the concepts that architecture has intrinsically. As an articulation, establishing such societal and environmental virtue on architecture might be reasoned to eliminate architects’ weak position toward big decisions among market actors and secure the proposed moral decisions beyond architectural activities.

3. PATRIK SCHUMACHER IN ETHICAL DISCUSSIONS

Ethics as a general concept has been disputed around the question “what we ought to do?” and theories behind that question mostly exposing moral principles and their nature. Moral principles vary according to the paradigm addressed in establishing these principles. The variance could be instantiated with some of the well-known ethical architectures. From a utilitarian perspective, the paradigm is seen as the purpose of human desire and actions are to be happy, and s/he prefer the good for her/himself. Therefore, what is done is ‘true’ to the extent that it is ‘good’ for individuals and society. Ethical behaviour is correct due to evaluating how well the results of advocacy and how good it is for the person (Williams, 1972).On the other hand, we see the concept of the social contract as a moral source in Contractarianism. In this theory, ethical behaviour derives from the agreements between the subjects of a society that the issues intend to implement. As a final example, referring to the well-known actor of ethical debates, morality in the Kantian perspective comes from the pure practical reasoning of a rational agent. Domination towards others’ choices directly restricted due to the rationality attribution to the agent. This constitutes autonomy of willing, which forms the same opportunity for all agents and should be preserved for humanity which could be recognised as a source of Kantian ethics (Chappel, 2012). Bauman discusses the autonomy of willing with a postmodern perspective and differs Modern ethical codes from the postmodern ones. According to Bauman, the Modern-based ethics of purely logical society and out of desire cannot be suitable in a postmodern world. The postmodern way of thinking has allowed redefining the moral and the un-moral and defined freedom of choice as a new ethical code. He also underlines that the orthodox desire for steady fundamentals of social ethic will always express itself with the will of humanist approaches (Bauman, 2020).Ethical concerns in architecture also varied through the paradigm, mainly through values. Values concerned with architectural ethics divided the discussion into two domains which are autonomism and moralism, and this distinction appears as an ethic-aesthetic debate in architecture. On the one hand, ethics is constituted by values that architecture must have in its nature, such as the well of humanity and ecology. On the other hand, architecture is comprised as a profession that only has an aesthetic capability so that ethical values couldn’t denote its responsibility in its nature. Generally, these differences are established in architecture by referring to the ethic theories and social sciences to constitute ethical positions in architecture by articulating them. As an example of referring and articulating ethics theories in architecture, Wasserman, Barry & Pallermo’s articulation of Kantian perspective on ethics and aesthetics could be expressed. When we look at their book Ethics and the Practice of Architecture, which is an essential resource on the ethics in architecture, they punctuated Kant’s words that “perfect architecture” can only be sought with its response to the human purpose and its wills (Wasserman, Barry & Pallermo, 2000, p.31). They also refer to the aesthetics values that architects must determine while shaping the environment that humans engage in according to their purposes. Both aesthetic and moral issues are the chief virtues concerning human life as a whole. Even some readings of Kantian perspective acknowledged that Kant is differentiated ethics from aesthetics regarding the separation of good and beauty (Timuçin, 2005), some architect-authors’ articulation of him established ethics and beauty in a holistic perspective. The concern behind that articulation of to construct architecture as a creation of what is good and beautiful for humanity and to consider this value as a nature of architecture. It also suits the authors to follow societal concerns in architecture to construct ethics since they are social artefacts that express social values and can shift these values. Their approach claims a societal virtue that architecture has to hold and could be acknowledged from Vitruvius, Alberti, and Ruskin to link architecture to societal benefits (Wasserman et al., 2000).In recent years, this social obligation that architects must have expanded their boundaries with environmental responsibility due to global warming and resource scarcity of the world. The scope of the concerns in architecture shifts its attention from human-centric social problems to more holistic concerns, that is, all living things without discrimination among them. Hence, inquiry through ethics in architecture shifts its attention to ethical concerns by constructing moral obligations to nature as equal as concerns of the well-being of the inhabitants in the built environment. In the same stand with this view, studies and theories establish architects as moral agents since the natural habitats were left at the mercy of the built environment (Fox, 2000). It should be added that, even though the ethical concerns and its responsible subject disputed and constituted in architecture as an architect’s obligations, the general view is more complex due to the range of stakeholders involved in the architectural activity (Legaux, 2004). The responsibilities of the virtues that must be involved are attributed generally to the architect. Still, it should be understood that since the architect is a moral agent but not the only agent that constructs the built environment, many theoreticians add moral virtues to architecture rather than architects. After this position on reading ethics in architecture, moral values become the concepts that architecture has intrinsically. As an articulation, establishing such societal and environmental virtue on architecture might be reasoned to eliminate architects’ weak position toward big decisions among market actors and secure the proposed moral decisions beyond architectural activities.

4. PATRIK SCHUMACHER IN ETHICAL DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Architecture, Society and Ethics through Schumacher’s Perspective

Patrik Schumacher as an architect and theorist, has been subjected to many architectural news and discussions for more than two decades. Apart from the projects that he was involved in Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA), he has been mostly and currently discussed by his theoretical statements in the recent past. His controversial ideas about political correctness (PC) in architecture in 2014 and 2016, declarations about housing crises in London regarding the capitalist economy in 2016 and 2018 have mainly carried him to the focus of ethical questions. It is common to name him as a ‘provocateur’ by the authors in digital architectural media (see examples [1],[2],[3]). Although criticisms towards him can be differentiated in each topic, it is seen that the main motive of critiques has based on the sensitivity of societal duties and/or values of architecture. Although those criticism and reactions have increased after 2014, his ethical perspective theory includes his early writings and speeches since the 1990s. One of his writings in 1997 -also presented as a lecture at AA School of London as a part of Graduate School Ethic Lecture Series- Schumacher concentrates on the innovative value of architecture as a societal function by referring to Kant’s morality and Marx’s materiality. Schumacher claims that architecture doesn’t have a value in itself; “that would be fetishism” (Schumacher, 1997; p.2). It is an institutional and societal subsystem instead that needs transdisciplinary theoretical conjectures. Schumacher describes the evolution of morality as a societal experience and dissemination of current traditional judgments via dogmatic rules in that particular speech. The nature of morality has been changed through the evolution of society, and some wisdom values of one may become unreasonable prejudices of others later. The worst scenario that Schumacher has pictured is the metamorphosis of moral tenets to “reactionary defence mechanisms” as vested interests (Schumacher, 1997; p.4) which he confronted years later in the form of public protests against himself. In his two-volume books entitles The Autopoiesis of Architecture, he comprehensively discusses the theory of architectural autopoiesis based on the sociological perspective of Luhman. Schumacher discussed and juxtaposed Luhman’s ideas within the societal function of architecture and asserts that it is a continuous innovation system of framing societal communications (Schumacher, 2011). He periodically repeats that social orders need to be stabilised by framing the spatial order. The role of architecture takes responsibility from this point forth and frames the social interactions of the built environment (Schumacher, 2012). Nevertheless, the societal tasks of the profession are not pre-given, and any profession, including architecture, cannot be invited to solve social problems. Those tasks are only posed by the discipline’s actors in itself (Schumacher, 2011; Schumacher, 2012). It is not expected to define today’s society within a uniformed frame, which is already called by varied titles (Schumacher, 2012). Architecture is one of the systems of those differentiations in society. Therefore its societal function also should not be defined within a uniform frame. However, it is hard to find any public and/or academic criticisms of Schumacher’s theoretical approaches that he presents in his writings. The cause celebre has started with his Facebook post in 2014. He first announced his ideas about PC in architecture through the 14th Venice Architecture Biennial. In his post- per se, Schumacher declared the same approaches with his writings and stated that architecture can only contribute to society with form and design-based communicative interactions and called to stop PC movement in architecture [4]. There have been many criticisms of his statements by digital media authors and readers, including his Facebook followers. When he recited similar approaches in 2016 after Alejandro Aravena won the Pritzker Prize, the number of criticisms increased and has become more aggressive. In that particular post –on Facebook again- he announced that the “PC takeover of architecture has been completed” by that award. With his own words “architectural innovation is replaced by the demonstration of noble intentions”, which cannot provide any solution on a global scale. He repeated that the only societal task of architecture is shifted to “do-good-fell-good pursuit of ‘social justice” instead of innovative contributions [5]. Those statements were not so abrupt for those familiar with Schumacher’s theoretical background. Nonetheless, it still caused a new debate in architectural social media. In the same year, Schumacher presented that social housing should be scrapped at World Architecture Festival. The only way to deal with the housing crises in London is to support the free-market process provided by foreign investors (WAF Podcast, 2016). Following the festival, the activists organised a public protest in London in return for his speech [6]. Schumacher also repeated that point of view in 2018 and said: “only capitalism can solve housing crises in London” (Schumacher, 2018; p.1). What he was focused on here is that the housing market is a political market more than others, and affordable houses cause to keep working-class salaries low. On the contrary, a capitalist way of production can provide less land price with the help of a competitive economic process (Schumacher, 2018). Even if that was a potential theoretical discussion to re-think the moral tasks of architecture within a capitalist economy, the reactions were far from this point of view. Schumacher was accused of being a well-heeled architect and “depicted as fascists” in his own words [7].

4.2. Schumacher’s Narratives on Architectural Digital Media

The study embraced the idea that one of the most visible and accessible ways to track the societal reactions in architectural discussion is the architectural digital media. In order to achieve this aim, the top 5 most visited architectural digital media platforms in Table 1 have been analysed to see how digital media authors discussed the moral and/or ethical issues Schumacher triggers. Table 1 shows that discussions about the London housing crisis are a controversial topic for the publishers. Archdaily, as the most visited architectural digital platform, announced their publishing policy on Schumacher’s narratives on hosing problems by clearly stating that they decided not to cover Schumacher’s speeches in WAF because his position doesn’t represent most of the architectural population. However, since it was published on other platforms, the speech became a controversial topic in architecture. Finally, it prompted a response from the Mayor of London, who declared it “just plain wrong” [8]. This represents one of the aspects of reactions against Schumacher by digital media publishers, which is censoring. Another article in Archdaily, which aims to support Schumacher’s ideas on iconic design criticism through starchitects, also gives publicity to his controversial ideas on PC movement and urban policy and names those as “universal outrage’ [9]. While the author takes the discussions from ‘socially-conscious design’ perspective, it still takes a neutral position and just emphasised its negative reactions in the architectural community. Archdaily also published Schumacher’s critics of the societal task of architecture in Chicago Architecture Biennial 2015 as ‘no surprise disownment of Schumacher’ and quoted his words regarding the criticism of moral discourses in architecture [10]. Besides those, Archdaily published Schumacher’s Facebook posts and declarations about humanitarian architecture criticisms. While authors mostly focused on the criticism of the 2016 Venice Architecture Biennial, Harper declared that the worst thing on the biennial was the sanctimonious critics. The author named collocutors –only by naming Schumacher- as “detractors” who do not like architecture to help poor people [11]. Chatel also discussed the same issue with the title of “Critical Round-up” by publishing Carson Chan’s and Rowen Moore’s criticisms on Schumacher [12]. Schumacher’s post on the PC movement and comparison of art and architecture [4] is also one of the controversial topics in Archdaily. A letter written by Conrad Newel to Pritzker Prize Committee was published by Archdaily, where Newel described Schumacher’s post “utterly stupid” response [13]. Jones published that discussion with the title of “Ban vs Schumacher” [14]. The author’s approach embraced a deepened theoretical discussion on each aspect of the opinions. She also discussed the speeches and posts of Schumacher on the PC movement in architecture in the same scope. She said that Schumacher paralysed us by his declarations and preferred one method against others. Hosey handled the topic with a different perspective by referring to Schumacher and discussed why architecture should not be art. He pointed out the definition of art and compared it with the need for architecture [15]. Even if he seems to agree with Schumacher’s perspective, it cannot be said that the discussion he made is parallel Schumacher’s declaration.On Dezeen, it is common to name Schumacher’s “manifest” as “controversial”, “provocative”, and “outspoken” by authors while presenting the disownments of his speech at WAF [6], [16], [17]. Only one article focused on the theoretical points of his narratives and aimed to open it to the discussion. Williams (2016) calls that the architecture world needs more Schumacher speeches to re-question the consensus values and thinking. Williams emphasised that the theoretical approaches in his speech are not considered by the public even if similar regulations have already been put into practice by the London council [18]. Contrary to this, another article announced not to listen to Patrik Schumacher [1]. Harper names him as a worthless provocateur and defines “Schumacherism” as proof of the lack of intellectualism in the architectural world. Only two of the articles [19], [20]. Objectively stage the process and focus on comments of other scholars and/or architects by specifically remarking the numbers of them. Schumacher returned those reactions that named him “Mr Nasty” and “Donald Trump of Architecture” with another Facebook post and announced his aim is to neither offend nor challenge universally shared values but to trigger a discussion against accepted untouchables. Dezeen also published the two Facebook posts of Schumacher on humanitarian architecture and the PC movement in the platform. It generally focused on readers’ reactions that disagreed with Schumacher but mostly defended Aravena due to Aravena’s state of opportunity that helps them to hear the voices of underprivileged people and their needs [21], [22], [23]. When Architect’s Magazine was examined, three main articles were distinguished among Aaron Betsky’s and Elizabeth Greenspan’s. Even though Aaron Betsky’s papers were not pointing specifically to Schumacher, his name was involved since issues were about crediting Aravena and Ban’s socially-oriented architecture. While he demonstrated Ban as a pioneer to architecture that socially responsible designs could be beautiful, he added Schumacher’s position against Pritzker Prize and societal responsibility embedded in architecture was only in the architectural community [24]. Similar tendencies were followed while he wrote about Aravena’s Pritzker Prize in 2016. In his article, he has criticised Schumacher’s insistence on parametricism to solve every architectural situation. He has distinguished Aravena’s solution toward social housing whether if he were “just an activist (or) not a real architect” due to his experimenting approach to the housing crisis [25]. Elizabeth’s article about PennDesign Symposium and criticism of SHoP architects co-founder Chris Sharples’s claims -specifically “innovation will trickle down from luxury projects to affordable ones”-, she has also issued Schumacher because of his “provocative” claims toward social housing even she acknowledges Schumacher “conciliatory” at PennDesign compared to Sharples and others [26]. On Archinect, articles were generally established with the basic information about what Patrik’s opinions are and the “Featured comments from our readers…” section below the article. In Alexander Walter article, Schumacher’s own words about the public housing crisis and his solution as the capitalist revolution was quoted directly from the guardian interview and followed with a featured comment that the housing is a problem “because of neoconservative(s) … like Schumacher- who is just sucking up to potential oligarch clients” [27]. Another example could be given as Goldberg’s article has denoted Patrik’s statements about how was misunderstood his free-market opinions. Then, with a featured comment of Galloway stated that Schumacher’s observations on the hypocrisy of government and his concerns of their motivations behind regulations are correct. Thus he could be “An antidote to the other fascist-light talking heads out there, new urbanists, density gurus, etc.” [28]. In Archinect, generally, Schumacher’s opinions were criticised with a semi-objective attitude due to agreeing with some of his observations about PC [28] and architectural critics [29]. As seen in Table 2, The Architect’s Newspaper is the head digital media platform among others with 19 related articles where Schumacher is issued. Furthermore, the Architect’s Newspaper is the most objective platform according to the author’s lack of individual comments or articulations on the information given about Schumacher and his statements. Even letters were expressed with the editorial note declaring their objectivity, such as in Francois Roche’s criticism toward Schumacher [30]. Nevertheless, it should be stated that some articles have individual articulations, like in Sayer’s article, which declares Schumacher’s desires of privatising cities and ideas of social housing in London as a “bitter taste” [31].Those examples of the sample group help us understand the reactions against Schumacher’s narratives on the intersection of ethical concerns of architecture. While most of the authors disagreed on his perspective, many of them do not hesitate to use rough words to describe him –not his theory-. Among others, only Jones [14], Willams [18], and Betsky [25] discussed the topic from a theoretical point of view even if they disagreed with his approaches. This may be interpreted as the intolerance of architectural society when the societal tasks are the issue and are discussed in the following section.

5. CONCLUSION

The study shows that Patrik Schumacher started a new debate on ethics and architecture in the first quarter of the 21st century. Although Schumacher theoretically intended this, the reactions of the architectural community are far from his aim. The related articles show that the main motive of the responses is shaped within the idea of the societal duty of architecture. However, none of the critics can clearly define that duty, why it has to be or did it ever be. This brings the question of the accepted agreements -‘the untouchables’ with Schumacher’s words- of architecture. That can be classified as a doxa of architectural ethics and may be discussed within Modern-based ethics and postmodern way of defining ethics as Bauman suggests. While it is possible to discuss Schumacher’s narratives in a different theoretical context concerning the duties and possibilities of architecture in a global world that is ruled in parallel to the capitalist economy, the reactions own a conservatory perspective. Thus, they position Schumacher, so to say, the evil genius and or an anti-hero of architecture. This attitude impedes new theoretical approaches and draws an invisible border to architectural theory. We, as authors, describe Schumacher’s standpoint as a potential deconstruction of historical a priori on architectural ethics. From an objective point of view, his theory deserves to be studied regarding the ethical codes and societal viewpoint of architectural ethics by re-evaluating the origins of social benefits theories. The desires of architects who picture the professionals as one of the saviour actors of societal justice is also another controversial topic to understand the reactions’ motive deeply. If it happens, today’s provocateur may help bring the pre-given ethical untouchables of architecture to the table and may cause a paradigm shift in architecture and ethics in the future.The secondary outcome of the research helps to ponder those social media platforms are potent and effective than academic writings in architecture. Although Schumacher has published two volumes of books that openly present his theoretical approach in 2012, the origin of criticisms dates to 2014, right after his first Facebook post on related issues. Schumacher was also a well-known architect with the projects he involved in ZHA in 2012. However, it seems that most of the architectural world was not interested in the theory behind those architectural productions until he clearly stated it on social media. The content of reactions also cannot put up a theoretical challenge but rather focused on some informal statements which only cover one part of a deepened theory. This again brings the question of how the ethical concerns structured in the society of architecture. Therefore, we as authors classified those as a reaction instead of criticisms, and the absence of a critical paper (except digital media writings and interviews) within an academic approach also supports this situation.